Sustainability 11 04542 v2

sustainability
Article
Port’s Role as a Determinant of Cruise Destination
Socio-Economic Sustainability
Maria Santos 1, *, Elena Radicchi 2 and Patrizia Zagnoli 2
1 Marketing, Operations and General Management Department, Business School, Lisbon University Institute,
1649-026 Lisbon, Portugal
2 School of Economics and Management, Università degli Studi di Firenze, 50121 Firenze, Italy
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Received: 2 July 2019; Accepted: 13 August 2019; Published: 21 August 2019
Abstract: This article argues that the cruise terminal ports play a crucial role in the economic and
socio-cultural sustainability of destinations, bridging the onshore tourism offered among cruise
companies, global operators, and local business and infrastructures. They support the promotion
of local brands and reduce congestion. The impact of crowds on the identity of coastal cities
triggered the attention of academia and media, alerting for their negative impact, specifically from the
Mediterranean cruises. In parallel, it raised the research interest on cruise tourism carrying capacity
and ports planning the integration of cruise tourists’ flow. However, previous studies focused on
the residents’ and passengers’ perception of a specific destination, neglecting the port management
role. This study aims to clarify the underneath dynamics that allow sustainable cruise–land visit.
Employing a qualitative case study approach, it compares data obtained from secondary sources
and port executives’ structured deep interviews from two leading transit ports connected with the
Mediterranean. Lisbon is amongst the most popular tourism destinations and international cruise
terminals; Livorno is a gateway port to Tuscany, mainly Florence and Pisa. Despite their different
patterns, in both ports of call, a strong concern with sustainability and a reduced congestion effect are
observed from the management actions on promoting the local offer and on revitalizing the terminal
infrastructures in order to provide comfort shopping and entertainment amenities to passengers.
Keywords: sustainability; responsible tourism; transit port; port of call; Mediterranean cruise
destinations
1. Introduction
There is a rising trend toward larger and more frequent cruise ships, showing the globalizing
nature of the cruise industry. The literature on cruise tourism highlights the perception of a cruise ship
as a “floating hotel” [1], as well as an example of a “tourist bubble” [2], where cruisers enjoy tranquility
and staying in a safe environment. Each ship hosts passengers of diverse nationalities with a wide
range of services including hospitality, entertainment, and itineraries, which take place both onboard
(concerts, theatres, activities, shopping, etc.) and inland (excursions, shopping, visiting historic sites,
museums, etc.), under a controlled, safe, and pleasant environment. Nevertheless, passengers desire to
discover different opportunities, which may be offered also at the destination ports and not only on
board [3]. The cruise companies build their competitive offer by putting together passengers’ tourist
needs and the appeal of ports’ brands, attractions, and inland assets, through relationships developed
with several stakeholders (port authority, logistic companies, tour operators, etc.).
The increasingly frequent flows of cruise excursionists affect the ports of call significantly, where
ships are usually docked less than one day, requiring port authorities and port cruise terminal
managers to engage in active outreach, not only with the cruise companies, but also with local
Sustainability 2019, 11, 4542; doi:10.3390/su11174542 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2019, 11, 4542 2 of 20
businesses. In particular, in mature and/or historic destinations, the services and facilities of the ports
are the cruisers’ first contact with the city, as well as the first protection and gateway from the cruise
ships to the city. Therefore, they are an important stakeholder given the complexity of achieving a
pleasant and sustainable experience, while keeping the balance between the interests of the residents,
the visitors, and the cruise ship industry [4].
The research on cost/benefit trade-off is scarce, as the studies addressing environmental
sustainability are still limited and far from being well established [5]. The debate on the major
positive and negative consequences of cruise tourism is still not consensual in most venues of impact
analysis, namely, environmental, socio-cultural, and economic. Both research and media show
contrasting perspectives regarding the socio-economic benefits of cruises in general, whereby the
benefits of cruise tourism are geographically concentrated in locations attracting excursions and tourist
walks. Seminal studies emphasized the positive impacts while acknowledging the environmental costs
and large asymmetries between the local benefits and national spillovers [6]. Recent case studies such as
Nanaimo in Canada [7] and Napoli in Italy [8] illustrate the importance of a “responsible cruise tourism”
vision leading the port governance to handle the interrelationship with the community stakeholders
in order to capture socio-economic benefits. In general, the literature shows that coastal residents
and local businesses accept the coming of huge cruises ships as they bring economic development,
although some studies also identified that, for the residents, the high expectations of potential—and
sometimes promised—benefits from the cruise port were not met [9].
The cruise tourism research remains quite fragmented and based on economic impact studies
prepared for industry stakeholders [10]. Regarding destination planning and attraction, cruise
tourism research analyzed the residents’ perception [4,9,11–14], the tourists and cruise passengers’
crowd perception and satisfaction [15–17], the destination communities’ driver and stakeholder
interrelationships [11,18,19], or the ports’ strategies of carrying capacity and competitive factors [7,8,20,21].
Studies highlighted the importance of ports developing marketing strategies to promote lengths of
stay [22], the port terminals’ factors that matter to the cruise ships and passenger itinerary choice, such as
the infrastructure [23], the integration of the port and city [8], the services offered [24–26], the experience
of the “local flavor” [27] or the cultural capital [11], the local business socio-economic value [9,20,28], and
the revitalization of the ports, in order to increase the comfort of the embarking/disembarking which
may be difficult to access and, thus, an unfriendly place, eliminating port choice [29].
Many port cities in the Mediterranean enjoy the benefits of cruise tourism, triggering their
strategic positioning as “tourist ports” [24], leading some, like Lisbon (Portugal) and Livorno (Italy),
to invest significant amounts in building or rebuilding cruise terminals [7,8,25]. In spite of the positive
assessment by industry associations and the European Commission reports, there is concern about the
loss of historic towns’ authenticity and the congestion, especially in the most crowded towns targeted
by different transport alternatives. We think of Barcelona, Venice, and Lisbon, but this even includes
Florence, which is reachable via cruise dock in Livorno.
The present article attempts to enrich the understanding of the port managers’ contribution
to destination competitiveness and the asymmetric framing of cruise stakeholders, i.e., the active
participation of the port authorities and the cruise terminal managers in pulling communications of
local businesses and terminal facilities. Given that the influence of the ports (and port cities) and the
port terminals on the cruise organization’s offer is understudied [30], this study innovates because it
includes the port managers’ perspective, as well as observing the port managers’ actions in order to
integrate local businesses in the terminal cruise facilities and in the onshore tour range. Although local
businesses may contribute to the destination competitiveness in parallel with the proximity of world
touristic attractions [30], excursions are mostly bought on board via global travel operators, which the
port may have difficulty in controlling. This study contributes to the analysis of how port managers
may bridge the relationships between local businesses and global companies, as well as attract land
visitors to terminal cruise facilities, thereby helping to reduce tourism congestion.
A comparative–qualitative approach is followed, supported by secondary data, observation of

the ports’ infrastructures, and deep interviews with executives of tourism public entities and the
ports’ administrations. The comparison is between two ports of important historical areas (Lisbon in
Portugal and Livorno within the Tuscan region in Italy), located at the beginning and in the middle of
Mediterranean tours, both facing rising mass tourism, which provides a rich context for the study of
this phenomenon. Some differences are evident. Lisbon is an important destination town, the capital
of Portugal, where cruise tourism awareness is quite recent, but consciously managed by the local
municipality in collaboration with a variety of stakeholders (port authority, international associations,
local businesses, etc.). Livorno is a “middle” town, traditionally a trading and ferry harbor which
developed into the role of “gateway” toward inland attractions, such as Florence and Pisa. In common,
both ports are investing in infrastructure innovation and in cooperative relationships with industry
associations, cruise companies, and local businesses in order to reduce the tourism flow and the local
consequences of the oligopolistic role of global cruise companies and travel business agents.
This introduction presents an overview of the literature reflecting the trend of the environmental,
economic, and socio-cultural sustainability of ports of call that are in Mediterranean coastal historic
towns. Section 2 provides a literature review examining the complexity of stakeholders in cruise
itineraries, the port typology, and their impact offshore, onshore, and inland. Section 3 proposes a
framework analysis reflecting the factors that may be considered in port management in order to
reduce the destinations’ dependence on the cruise industry’s global players, necessitating a strategic
collaboration among different actors in order to gain an advantage for every player involved: the port,
the cruise line, and the destination. In Section 4, the materials and the qualitative case study method
are described. Finally, after presenting the results, the discussion and concluding remarks are drawn,
which appoint the research limitations and managerial and academic implications.
2. Literature Review
2.1. The Development of Cruise Tourism

Cruise tourism is very peculiar since it combines “tourism” and “hospitality” to offer a whole
leisure experience while traveling from different coastal towns [31,32]. Today, the segments and
product ranges in cruise ships are quite large and diverse, a far cry from the cruise concept as a
holiday targeted to seniors searching for a relaxed experience, and a social and cultural combination.
Contemporary cruises are affordable for families and even for millennials traveling alone.
Over the 10-year period, from 2007 to 2017, global tourist arrivals, mainly land-based tourists,
rose from 930 million in 2007 to an estimated 1323 million in 2017, approximately 42% overall [33]. The
international demand for cruises had an annual growth rate of 5.4% corresponding to an overall rate of
68.5%. European cruise tourism increased by 71.9% versus the North American increase by 25.6% [34].
After the Caribbean, Europe is the world’s second largest cruise ship destination. Port-of-call passenger
visits rose by 22% over the 2009–2014 period, growing from 23.76 million to 28.96 million [35].
According to the Med Cruises report [36], a substantial growth in passenger movement happened
over the last decade: the 10-year growth stands at 27.6%. At the beginning of the century, this
number stood at 4.3 million passenger movements, confirming the growth that cruise activities in the
Mediterranean experienced since then. The ratio of transit passengers to passengers’ homeporting
from Med Cruise member ports stands at 71/29. This ratio remained stable over time, as it was almost
the same throughout the last 10 years.
Mediterranean destinations led the mentioned worldwide growth, recording extraordinary results
with 8% more international arrivals than in 2016. As a result, the Mediterranean stands today as the
second biggest cruising region, following the Caribbean. Combined, the two major cruise regions,
Caribbean and the Mediterranean, host 51.2% of the global cruise fleet capacity. In the Mediterranean,
the scale of cruise passengers exceeded 27 million movements per year three times during the last five
years, with 2013 being the first time ever that this total exceeded 27 million movements [36].
2.2. Coastal Destination Cost/Benefit Trade-Off

The fast increase in the number and diversity of passengers, in parallel with the bigger dimension
of ships and the large range of their entertainment offers, drew attention to the need for a congestion
management approach, not only with regard to the host destination, with port and cruise industry
stakeholder analysis [7,8,19,21,28] and the perceptions of the residents and the local businesses [11,12,14],
but even with regard to the cruise passengers [15,17].
Cruise tourism is just one of the several coastal tourism segments, but it is the fastest growing and
the most dynamic, showing an increasing trend and resilience to the economic crisis [37]. According to
this study, the global economic impact of the cruise industry is high in Europe and especially in the
Mediterranean regions, where Italy holds a consolidated leadership position. Italy is the largest cruise
ship manufacturer in Europe and the largest turnaround port country.
Over the past 10 years, the cruise industry expanded over 69%, exceeding land-based tourism
(42%) [34]. The cruise industry generated about 137 million passenger and crew visits at ports around
the globe. European ports count for less than half of the number of passengers and crew from the
North American leading destination. By purchasing pre- and post-cruise vacations, shore excursions,
souvenirs, and other retail goods, passengers spent an estimated $17.7 billion, representing 29% of
total cruise sector direct expenditures. In 2015, the cruise industry generated about 16.9 billion euros
derived from four sources: the passengers, the ships’ procurement of goods and services to support
their operations, the compensation of the administrative staff of the companies and crew, and finally
the construction and maintenance of cruise ships, which alone accounts for around 15% of the total
direct economic contribution.
The socio-cultural impact and the risk of cruise congestion are being discussed in academic
research in spite of the increase in the global economic contribution of the cruise sector. According
to the Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA) (2018) [34], the combined direct, indirect, and
induced contributions generated by cruise tourism were estimated to be $134 billion in 2017, showing
an increase of 6.3% from 2016. Although the European Commission recognized the economic impact
of cruise line activity and its contribution to the European Union (EU) economy [35], many researchers
questioned the short-term economic benefit to the destination [19]. Johnson (2002) [38] estimated that
cruise passengers’ outlays in local economies are small. Studies showed that the economic benefits of
cruise tourism are greater in homeports or turnaround destinations [39]. Others revealed that, despite
the existence of fees (docking and passengers) and revenue from visitor and crew expenditure on
souvenirs, food, and shore excursions, the economic benefits are typically less than for land-based
tourism, since stopover tourists spend on average 10–17 times more than cruise ship tourists [11,28,40].
Local benefits failed to materialize when cruise tourism was undertaken without investment in an
involvement of destination communities, when comparing four towns close to a new port in Trujillo,
Honduras [11].
Regarding previous studies [11,39,41], economic benefits are not so evident as the cruise tourists
tend to eat, sleep, and even book onshore excursions on board, as in some coastal towns the tours
are organized to other nearby towns which are more historic or interesting. Cruise tourism may be
an important development driver for port-cities, depending both on the operational profile of the
market and on the domestic conditions, such as the size and facilities of the ports [19]. Particularly
for places in a low economic context, the socio-cultural impact should also be a key factor to consider
before proceeding with big investment for cruise terminals or increasing the wharf dimensions to
receive bigger vessels [21]. Nevertheless, accurate studies on the local impacts of cruise tourism are
still rare [8], and the studies measuring the cost/benefit trade-off are still in their infancy [41].
2.3. The Cruise Sector Structure and Drivers

The contemporary cruise industry began in the late 1960s and early 1970s with the founding of
the Norwegian Cruise Line (1966), Royal Caribbean International (1968), and Carnival Cruise Line
(1972), which emerged as the largest cruise lines. The early goal of the cruise industry was to develop
a mass market since cruising was, until then, an “elite” activity. A way to achieve this was through
economies of scale as larger ships were able to accommodate more customers, as well as creating
additional opportunities for onboard sources of revenue [34].
By the 1980s, economies of scale were further expanded with cruise ships that could carry more
than 2000 passengers. The current large cruise ships have a capacity of about 6000 passengers, but
the bulk of cruise ships are within the 3000–4000 passenger range. The market for the cruise industry
was by then established and recognized as a full-fledged touristic alternative directly competing with
well-known resort areas such as Las Vegas or Orlando.
The market drivers of the contemporary cruise industry are similar to those that fostered the
growth of tourism after World War II, particularly the rising affluence of the global population and the
growing popularity of exotic and resort destinations. For some analysts, what is novel with cruising is
that the ship represents in itself the destination [42], acting as a floating hotel (or a theme park) with
all the related facilities (bars, restaurants, theaters, casinos, swimming pools, etc.). This permitted
cruise lines to develop a captive market within their ships, as well as for shore-based activities (e.g.,
excursions or facilities entirely owned by subsidiaries of the cruise line).
As described by Rodrigue and Notteboom (2013) [43], the cruise industry has a very high level
of ownership concentration, since the four largest cruise shipping companies account for 96% of the
market as measured by the number of passengers (Carnival Lines, Royal Caribbean, Norwegian Cruise
Line, and Mediterranean Shipping Company—MSC Cruises). High levels of horizontal integration are
also observed, since most cruise companies acquired parent companies but kept their individual names
for the purpose of product differentiation. For instance, Royal Caribbean Cruises, the world’s second
largest cruise company behind Carnival Lines, accounts for 24% of the global market serviced under
six different brands such as Celebrity Cruises (which caters to higher-end customers) and Azamara
Club Cruises (smaller ships servicing more exotic destinations with shore stay options) [34]. The cruise
industry, thus, presents an illusion of diversity with the bulk of the market firmly in the hands of
large players.
The cruise industry over time became oligopolistic as high levels of concentration emerged [44].
Although the penetration into new markets occurs through alliances and collaboration with local
brands, there is a dominant power of the cruise companies and a concentration of itineraries, leading
to the overload of a small number of ports, whether homeports or ports of call [19].
The organization of onshore itineraries is difficult for the host ports to control due to the increasing
asymmetry of bargaining power between port managers and cruise ship operators. The importance of
a port can, therefore, be different based upon the commercial strategies of its users, primarily, in this
specific point of view, the cruise companies.
The cruise industry sells itineraries, not destinations [45], underlining the core importance in
the selection of a sequence of ports of call. Cruise operators are challenged to develop competitive
cruise packages but, at the same time, they must optimize the deployment of their cruise ship fleet in
view of minimizing operating costs and/or maximizing revenue per passenger slot. As such, vessel
deployment strategies and itinerary design are affected by market circumstances and requirements
such as the seasonality in demand [45], the optimal duration of a cruise vacation, the balance between
sailing time and shore time, the existence of “must see” destinations, and overall guest satisfaction.
Cruise lines adapt itineraries to different regions and passenger segments [42]. The itinerary and the
port infrastructures are key factors for the cruise owner’s decision [23]. Also, the length of stay of
cruise ships in ports is influenced by the attractiveness of the port of call and the distance between the
previous and the following ports [22].
Several port-cities are investing in order to fit the tangible basic requirements imposed by the
cruise companies. Competition among coastal cities to be part of the cruise market is fierce; thus,
a region/destination/port needs attractive, special, unique, or iconic characteristics to attract cruise lines
and get cruise passengers from abroad. There are, therefore, important intangible requirements such
as the destination’s brand, reputation, and inland potential tourism attractiveness, where port-cities
and local institutions should invest if they would like to be part of the global cruise circuit. Observing
that trend, Rodrigue & Notteboom (2013) [43] suggested that a next step will involve the development
of new cruise terminals, and a closer integration between the cruise port and the cruise line.
Being part of the “global cruise circus” is not always a “must”. Each port-city should base its own
market position according to several variables, usually linked with the history, cultural background,
socio-economic humus, social milieu, strategic vision, mission of the local government, and so on.
Therefore, several governments and port authorities, especially those in developing countries
aiming to become new tourism destinations, are investing massively in re-qualifying, building, or
extending cruise terminals [8,11], even if entry barriers are very high.
2.4. Port Categories and Their Role in the Cruise Destination Developmement
Ports have to meet some key requirements of cruise lines in order to be considered potential cruise
destinations (ports of call). Indeed, the specific cruise sector structure implies that not every port can
be suitable and included in this particular segment of tourism. To be considered a port of call, there are
some tangible requirements [46], such as the existence of a cruise terminal or an alternative docking
facility, docks of sufficient length, water of sufficient depth (cruise ships generally require between 8
and 9 m of water to operate safely), the possibility for cruise ships to turn around, a constant level
of access regardless sea conditions, good facilities at the terminal or docking facility such as luggage
handling space, gangways, parking area, airlift, customs area, waiting facilities, toilets, and information
centers, and professional, qualified ground handlers such as inbound tour operators and transport
operators. Capacity building is, therefore, very important for destinations that consider developing
cruise tourism, involving at least an international airport in the region where cruise passengers can
be flown in and out (in the case of “fly and cruise”). Competitive pricing is another important issue,
as cruise lines focus on the balance per port when developing itineraries, taking into consideration
excursion revenues, port fees, tugboat tariffs, taxes, and agency fees. Safety and security requirements
represent another factor, as a port must be able to accommodate cruise ships and their passengers safely.
Because of its international nature, the cruise tourism industry is subject to the mandates and guidance
of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) which is responsible for establishing international
standards for cruise ship safety, design, and construction.
The actual categorization of ports at the international level defines the port’s role according to
specific dimensions and dynamics between industry stakeholders, such as the cruise companies, the
ports, the passengers, the international trade channels, and the global travel agents. The competitiveness
of homeports in the Mediterranean actually show different strategic priorities in investment and
marketing [20]. London & Lohman (2014) [18] provided a theoretical contribution of the relationships
between the cruise destination stakeholders and the cruise companies. The authors identified key
stakeholders and the power that underpins their commercial relationship in the context of the
cruise industry. Their proposed framework identified five elements that guide the destination’s
development: (1) the type of port (homeport, port of call, or hybrid); (2) the stakeholders and their
interest (cruise line owners and operators, gatekeepers as regulatory officials and transport providers,
the port-side stakeholders as the port owners and operators and ship service providers, and the
shore-side stakeholders as the government, investors, tour operators, and local transport and other
business providers); (3) the stage of development of the cruise destination; (4) the port characteristics;
(5) the origin of the proposal for cruise infrastructure.
Marti (1990) [47] classified three port categories according to their position in the cruise itinerary,
for which the investment required is different: the homeport (or turnaround), the port of call (or transit
port), and the hybrid port.
A port of call is an intermediate port where ships customarily stop for supplies, repairs,
or transshipments of cargo. As it relates to the cruise industry, a port of call is a stopover destination
included in an itinerary.
A homeport (or turnaround) is the starting and/or ending point for a cruise itinerary. There are
some major conditions that a cruise port must fulfil in order to become a home port. The first condition
is the presence of adequate port infrastructure (operational depth at the dock, the length of the pier,
the existence of a passenger terminal, etc.). The second one is the efficient provision of an extensive
range of services to the cruise ship, the passengers, and the crew: security equipment, warehouse and
baggage handling equipment, parking area for coaches, taxis, and private autos, supply provision, and
ship repairs. The third condition is the connectivity with other transport modes, such as the existence
of a well-connected international airport, the existence of a train station, and the connection of the
cruise port with road networks. The fourth condition is the ability of the port-city to host the cruise
passengers. Most cruise passengers choose to stay at the port-city prior to their embarkation or after
their disembarkation from a cruise ship. As such the port-city must have the necessary infrastructures
able to accommodate the cruise passengers. These infrastructures include hotels and restaurants. The
hybrid port respects both sets of characteristics. The homeport is also referred to as a hub port [45],
although in the sense that its demand is very high.
A hub port is a central location in a transportation system with many inbound/outbound
connections of the same mode. The hub-and-spoke system is growing as a result of the advent of large
vessels in the cruise industry. Whereas, in the past, most vessels stopped over in all route ports, large
vessels are only stopping at large hub ports where anchoring would be feasible. This translates into an
increase in the so-called transshipment freights. Generally, in logistics, the freights are unloaded in
the main hub in the territory, and then the small vessels carry the freights from the hub ports to the
neighboring ports.
The ports may be classified into three categories depending on the role they serve within their
regions: destination cruise port, gateway cruise port, and balanced cruise port [43].
A destination port is a place where the city overlaps with the tourist offers. It is usually a “must
see” city that cruise companies wish to include in their itineraries. There are several reasons why the
cruise port area can be the sole destination. In the case of cities such as Venice and Barcelona, the
cultural amenities offered are world class to the point that tourists have little incentive to see anything
else in the vicinity. The cruise terminal and its immediate area essentially act as a tourist bubble [2].
A gateway port is a location (terminal) where major flows of passengers, goods, and ships
converge. It is a transit place, where carriers stop over for oil and other service procurement. It has
many inbound/outbound connections of different modes (e.g., maritime and land). At the same time,
the tourist destination is not the port city, but the surrounding territory. It is, therefore, a kind of
“corridor” to reach other inland attractions.
A balanced port is a location quite attractive, where the port can be a destination, but where
excursions to other places not far are also available.
3. Materials and Methods
3.1. The Proposed Framework

The literature shows that many ports are undertaking investments in their berths, maritime stations,
reception logistics, transportation, events, inland connections, and so on. The focus of our research
is the influence of the port authority and cruise terminal management on the sustainability of cruise
service management when the boats are docked. Sustainability should be achieved through investment
and socio-economic decisions that preserve local identity from standardization and congestion.
For sure, the services and the infrastructures necessary for a port of call are different from those
of a homeport, a destination, or a gateway. The cruise companies choose the port to touch and dock
according to logistics and other factors [18]. The competitive dynamics in the geographical area and
the target customer see the cruise company building the cruise service from one side to pick up the
opportunities of the chosen port’s infrastructures, accessibility, positioning, facilities, cruise tariffs to
dock, reputation, brand promotion, and popularity of the port’s name. However, ports that decide to
interact with and play a role in cruise tourism organize their assets and investments in order to match
Sustainability
the cruise2019, 11, x FORand
companies PEERthe
REVIEW
passengers’ demand. 8 of 20
Since the cruise sector development is recent, different ports show a clear imitation process.
toMoreover,
enrich the supply with
according to thelocal
scopeidentity
of cruisecontent
tourism,and experiences
specific able toin overcome
stakeholders theare
the territory flat mass
involved
tourism flows. The trend is to involve cruise industry stakeholders as terminal operators
to enrich the supply with local identity content and experiences able to overcome the flat mass tourism [43]. The
development of associations
flows. The trend is to involvesuch as CLIA
cruise or Med
industry Cruise allow
stakeholders for much
as terminal more dynamism,
operators as well as
[43]. The development
the
of associations such as CLIA or Med Cruise allow for much more dynamism, as well astechnical
trade international fairs, where port managers can present their natural, cultural, and the trade
characteristics, as well as promote local businesses and receive financial and other support.
international fairs, where port managers can present their natural, cultural, and technical characteristics, It is
important
as well as promote local businesses and receive financial and other support. It is important thatthe
that the attractive capability of each port is not passive and dependent upon the
oligopolistic power ofofcruise
attractive capability each portcompanies. Ports and
is not passive must be able toupon
dependent identify their specific
the oligopolistic and of
power unique
cruise
advantages
companies.toPortsbargain
mustwith travel
be able global their
to identify agents and cruise
specific companies.
and unique The port
advantages cruisewith
to bargain terminal
travel
business model is based on this bargaining power, its association membership,
global agents and cruise companies. The port cruise terminal business model is based on this bargainingand the offer of
different services,
power, its reflecting
association its uniqueness,
membership, either
and the offer of through
different the shopping
services, services,
reflecting or througheither
its uniqueness, the
entertainment or cultural
through the shopping characteristics.
services, or through the Thus, port investment
entertainment policies
or cultural should take
characteristics. Thus,intoport
consideration the interactions portrayed in Figure 1.
investment policies should take into consideration the interactions portrayed in Figure 1.
Figure
Figure1.1.Cruise
Cruisesupply
supplystrategic
strategicprocess.
process.
Moreover,
Moreover,each eachport
portofofcall
callneeds
needstotobebeaware
awareofofthethefierce
fiercecompetition
competitionwith withother
othernearby
nearbyports
ports
and
andwith
withthetheother
otherports
portsofofcall
callthat
thatcompose
composethe thecruise
cruiseitinerary,
itinerary,asaswell
wellasastheir
theirco-location.
co-location.Port Port
characteristics and their services offered have a strategic role in ensuring the inclusion of peripheral
characteristics and their services offered have a strategic role in ensuring the inclusion of peripheral
ports
portswithin
withinthethecruise
cruisenetwork.
network.IfIfaaportportdoes
doesnotnothave
haveattractive
attractive natural/historical
natural/historical characteristics
characteristics or or a
a wide
widerange
rangeofofservices,
services,it it
maymay nevertheless
nevertheless become
become a cruise
a cruise destination,
destination, due due
to itstoproximity
its proximity
to worldto
world touristic attractions and the organization of excursions [30].
touristic attractions and the organization of excursions [30].
The
Theports
portswe
wechose
chosetotoanalyze—Lisbon
analyze—Lisbonand andLivorno—have
Livorno—havedifferent differentspecific
specificroles.
roles.InInspite
spiteofofitsits
ocean location, Lisbon is a key cruise destination, connecting the Mediterranean and the Atlantic
ocean location, Lisbon is a key cruise destination, connecting the Mediterranean and the Atlantic coast.
coast. Livorno is a key stop—a “gateway”, as the Carnival cruise company calls it—close to very
Livorno is a key stop—a “gateway”, as the Carnival cruise company calls it—close to very attractive
attractive
touristic touristic
destinationsdestinations
like Florencelike and
Florence
Pisa, and Pisa, andofitthe
it is one is one
mainofattractions
the main attractions in cruisein
in cruise packages
packages in the central Mediterranean Sea.
the central Mediterranean Sea.
According
Accordingtotothe theliterature
literaturereview
reviewandandthetheabovementioned
abovementionedmeta-analysis,
meta-analysis,we wedeveloped
developeda a
tentative
tentativetheoretical
theoreticalframework
frameworkfor foranalyzing
analyzingthetherole
roleofofthe
theports
portsfor a sustainable
for a sustainable supply
supply (Figure
(Figure 2).2).
As members of the industry, according to the itineraries and their strategies of development, port
As members of the industry, according to the itineraries and their strategies of development, port
managers act as ambassadors of the town and region, as well as promote local brands and cultural
tours. They may reduce congestion by interfering with ship schedules or length of stay, acting as an
interface between global tourism operators and cruise companies with local businesses.
managers act as ambassadors of the town and region, as well as promote local brands and cultural
Sustainability
tours. may11,reduce
They2019, x FOR PEER REVIEWby interfering with ship schedules or length of stay, acting 9asofan
congestion 20
interface between global tourism operators and cruise companies with local businesses.
Theframework
The frameworkincorporates
incorporatesthethetechnical,
technical,logistic,
logistic,and
andeconomic
economicfeatures
featuresof
ofthe
theport,
port,looking
lookingat at
thesocio-economic
the socio-economic dimensions
dimensions and and the relationship
the relationship with thewith the stakeholders
stakeholders that promotethat
thepromote
destinationsthe
destinations
and the inland and the inland Indeed,
experience. experience. Indeed,
cruise cruise will
companies companies
choose will choose destinations
destinations according to according
logistic
to logistic
and and other
other factors [18]. Thefactors
cruise[18]. The cruise
terminal terminal ports’
ports’ governance governance
influences influences
the cruise companies’the choice,
cruise
companies’ choice, depending on their infrastructure characteristics and the promotional
depending on their infrastructure characteristics and the promotional campaigns regarding the campaigns
regarding the
destination destination
sightseeing sightseeing
uniqueness uniqueness [7,8,19,21,48].
[7,8,19,21,48].
Figure 2. The theoretical framework.
Figure 2.on
The ports’ bargaining power depends Thethe
theoretical
industryframework.
associations that they can gather to support
the investment. Both these associations and the ports’ governance will take part in the commercial and
sales The
fairs ports’
of the bargaining power
global industry, depends the
to promote on destination
the industryports
associations that businesses.
and the local they can gather
Cruiseto
support themake
companies investment. Both these
direct contact with associations
these marketingand strategies
the ports’and
governance will complementary
may achieve take part in the
commercial and
partnerships withsales fairsbusinesses.
the local of the global
Theindustry,
ports mayto not
promote thesell
directly destination ports and but
onshore excursions, the they
local
businesses.
should Cruise
actively companies
promote make direct
the competence andcontact with these
differentiation of marketing strategies and may achieve
the local businesses.
complementary partnerships with the local businesses. The ports may not directly sell onshore
3.2. Research Methodology:
excursions, A Qualitative
but they should activelyCase Study Analysis
promote the competence and differentiation of the local
businesses.
The understanding of the abovementioned relationships was achieved through an exploratory
qualitative method based on a comparative case study, the data for which were collected from structured
3.2. Research
deep Methodology:
interviews addressedAtoQualitative Case Study
port managers, Analysis
as well as observations at the cruise terminal, combined
The understanding
with studies gathered by of theoffices
port abovementioned relationships
and the public published was achieved through
by consultants, an exploratory
the media, and other
qualitativedata.
secondary method
Twobased ontransit
mainly a comparative
ports werecase study, the
compared data
based onfor which
their offer were collected
of tourism from
services:
structured deep interviews addressed to port managers, as well as observations at the cruise terminal,
Livorno in Italy and Lisbon in Portugal.
combined with studies gathered by port offices and the public published by consultants, the media,
and other secondary data. Two mainly transit ports were compared based on their offer of tourism
services: Livorno in Italy and Lisbon in Portugal.
To build the Livorno case study, the main secondary dataset used was the Instituto Regionale
Programmazione Economica della Toscana (IRPET) report “Cruising in Livorno and its economic
To build the Livorno case study, the main secondary dataset used was the Instituto Regionale
Programmazione Economica della Toscana (IRPET) report “Cruising in Livorno and its economic
impact on Tuscany” [37]. The IRPET report includes the port operation statistics, services offered to
tourists, the integration and accessibility of the territory, and a benchmark analysis from the main cruise
ports, as well as the results from a survey addressed to 2288 passengers onshore, chosen randomly on
the basis of a sample pre-stratified by the tourists’ nationality, rating of the ship, and time of year. This
sample covered 77% of the passengers who went ashore from the 807,935 passengers of 403 ships that
were docked in the port of Livorno in 2016.
The Lisbon case study was mainly based on the cruise passengers’ survey coordinated by Tourism
of Portugal and the port report available on its website [49]. Also, industry reports were used, such
as the one produced by Deloite [50]. Lisbon data were obtained from a survey conducted on 998
passengers from 52 ships docked in Lisbon from April to November 2016 and 1003 passengers from
49 ships for the corresponding period in 2017.
3.2.1. Lisbon: A “Destination” Port

The Port of Lisbon (Porto de Lisboa) is a wide European port and the largest in Portugal, located
at the interface between the Atlantic Ocean and the vast estuary of the Tagus, 362 nautical miles away
from the Gibraltar strait [49]. where the Mediterranean Sea begins. Its geo-strategic centrality and a
water basin of 32,000 ha, sheltered and deep, give the Port of Lisbon a high stature in the logistics chain
of international commerce and on the main cruise circuits, offering the best navigating conditions both
for large ships of great depth, namely, transoceanic vessels, and for nautical sport. Integrated in the
trans-European network of transports, it is the “meeting port” of maritime, railway, and road transport.
The Port of Lisbon is still mainly a port of trading general cargo (56%) and mineral and food raw
materials (15%), but the passenger traffic is growing, accounting for 15% of the port’s business [49].
Together with its own favorable geographical position and a population of around 510,000
inhabitants, the metropolitan area accounts over 2.8 million people. Lisbon is an important town to
visit and a destination port with a cruise harbor layout able to easily host the cruise ships. The city
serves as a cultural hinge with the Atlantic coast of Europe, the western Mediterranean, and northern
Europe, as well as Africa, Madeira, and the Canary Islands. Previous studies focusing on the cruise
passengers’ motivations in Lisbon found that they considered it a cultural visit [51].
In the last decade, tourism (and cruise tourism) expanded significantly. The town became a
very successful touristic destination for visitors, who arrive mainly by plane (94%) from all over the
world [50]. The number of foreigners staying in hotels in the Lisbon metropolitan area was more than
four million, where 70% stayed in the city.
Lisbon has three cruise terminals, which easily allow direct immersion into the town. At the Santa
Apolonia terminal, opened in November 2014, and Jardim do Tabaco Quay, cruise passengers can walk
directly to the center of the city.
Close to the cruise terminal, there are four recreational docks—the Alcantara Dock, the Belem
Dock, the Bom Sucesso Dock, and the Santo Amaro Dock—with security equipment (hand and cabin
luggage X-ray machines), able to offer a wide range of services such as tourist information, a post
office, public phones, public toilets, souvenir shops, wine shops, car park, coach park, taxis, and a
shuttle to the city center. Lisbon supplies approximately 1500 m of quay with depths between 8 m
and 12 m allowing the berth of cruise vessels from the smallest to the largest. In order to increase the
capacity, the port authority is undergoing works to add 670 m of berthing quay near Santa Apolónia.
Figure 3 shows that Lisbon differs from Livorno as a gateway port. For passengers, the city of
Lisbon is the prime destination and they rarely undertake further excursion. A large majority of
cruise tourism reaches Lisbon as an elective destination where visitors can easily walk downtown.
Considering the short amount of time of cruise stops, most tourists prefer to visit the city, on their own
or through a guided tour, to discover the town in an organized way. Regarding the passengers who
responded to the survey in 2017 and 2018, only 26% bought a guided tour before landing and fewer
than 30% chose excursions out of Lisbon city. In this case, the most visited places were Cascais (18% of
Sustainability 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 20
respondents) and Sintra (28% of respondents), in the metropolitan regions of Lisbon and Obidos (21%)
and Fatima (10%), where the latter is a religious destination.
Figure 3. Lisbon as a destination port.

Figure 3. Lisbon as a destination port.
Although Lisbon hosted cruise ships for a long time, only in the last decade did the municipality
andAlthough Lisbon hosted
port authorities consider cruise
the ships
cruisefor a long time,
business only in the
as strategic. last2014,
Since decade thedid the municipality
concession of cruise
and port authorities
terminal management consider the cruise
was granted businessassociation,
to a private as strategic. Since 2014,
pursuing the concession
the so-called of cruise
“landlord” model:
terminal management was granted to a private association, pursuing the so-called
the port’s jurisdiction is managed in order to open the port’s area to the city. Management, coordination, “landlord” model:
the port’s jurisdiction
facilitation, and essential is managed
promotionsinfor order to open theand
the maintenance port’s area to the
improvement city.
of the Management,
competitive levels
coordination, facilitation, and essential promotions for the maintenance
of the port and the partnerships are entrusted to the Lisbon Port Community. Both banks of the Tagus and improvement of the
competitive levels of the port and the partnerships are entrusted to the Lisbon
gave rise to many restaurants, bars, and outdoor cafés. An important part of the Lisbon nightlife Port Community. Both
banks of theplace
also takes Tagusby gave
the rise to Today,
river. many restaurants,
the merchant bars, and
port of outdoor
Lisbon hascafés. An important
a large area that part of theof
is a stage
Lisbon nightlife also
entertainment takes place
and culture, by the
hosting river. Today,
musical concerts, thewith
merchant
both openport air
of Lisbon has a large
and covered area that
spaces.
is a stage of entertainment and culture, hosting musical concerts, with
From January to October 2018, the Port of Lisbon hosted 281 cruise ships and about 487,000 both open air and covered
cruise
spaces.
passengers, rises of 1% and 11% compared to the previous year. Between October 2017 and 2018, the
FromofJanuary
number to October in
cruise passengers 2018, thegrew
transit Port by
of 48%,
Lisbon hosted
while 281 cruise ships
the turnaround went andup by about
43%.487,000
cruise The
passengers, rises of 1% and 11% compared to the previous year.
strategy of the “landlord” model is to make the Port of Lisbon [49] the following: Between October 2017 and (i) a
2018, the number of cruise passengers in transit grew by 48%, while the turnaround
functionally diversified port, with three core activities—container cargo, bulk agri-food stuffs, and went up by 43%.
The strategy
tourism of the “landlord”
and leisure—closely tied to model is to make the
the development of Port of Lisbon
the Lisbon [49] the following:
metropolitan region and (i) the
a
functionally diversified port, with three core activities—container cargo, bulk
surrounding area, which will form a potential hinterland; (ii) an integrated port, in harmony with the agri-food stuffs, and
tourism and leisure—closely
surrounding areas and city life;tied(iii)
to athe development
comfortable and ofeasythedestination.
Lisbon metropolitan
In the frame region
of thisand the
strategy,
surrounding area, which will form a potential hinterland; (ii) an integrated
the Port of Lisbon is a member of global associations, such as CLIA, Cruise Europe, and Med cruises, port, in harmony with the
surrounding areas andstakeholder
where international city life; (iii)relationships
a comfortable areand easy destination.
considered by private In companies
the frame of thismanage
that strategy, the
the Port of Lisbon is a member of global associations, such as CLIA, Cruise
port and by the port authority. The Port of Lisbon negotiated an extension of the number of days the Europe, and Med cruises,
where
cruisesinternational
are docked.stakeholder
The extension relationships are considered
of the stopover in town isby anprivate
effectivecompanies that manage
strategy aimed the
at reducing
port and by the
congestion port by
carried authority.
short-term Thetourism.
Port of Lisbon negotiated
The local government, an extension
togetherofwiththe national
number of anddays the
regional
cruises are docked. The extension of the stopover in town is an effective strategy aimed at reducing
congestion carried by short-term tourism. The local government, together with national and regional
stakeholders, is attempting to activate a shared policy in order to respond to tourism crowding and
its effects on the local communities and environment.
3.2.2. Livorno: A “Gateway” Port

Sustainability 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 20
The town of Livorno compared to other millenarian areas in Tuscany is relatively “new”, as it
was started as a port to serve Pisa. The historical maritime republic located at the outfall of the Arno
stakeholders, is attempting to activate a shared policy in order to respond to tourism crowding and its
River slowly lost its sea front. Consequently, the coast where Livorno was built in the 14th century
effects on the local communities and environment.
became the port of Pisa. The importance of this port for the entire Tuscan region introduced the
Lorena
3.2.2. Duke inA1575,
Livorno: entrusting
“Gateway” PortBernardo Buontalenti to design the port enlargement and the new
town of Livorno.
The
At the town of Livorno
beginning compared
of the 1600s, byto other millenarian
promoting areas
a special in Tuscany
hosting is relatively
legislation called “new”, as it that
“Livornine” was
started as a port to serve Pisa. The historical maritime republic located
encouraged free cult and free commerce, many Jewish, Portuguese, Greek, Dutch, etc. travelers at the outfall of the Arno River
slowly
started lost
moving its seainfront.
from Consequently,
the Mediterranean the coast where Livorno
and European was built
countries. in the
Livorno in14th
a few century became
years became
the
quite a significant multiethnic port town with a key role in serving Florence, the Tuscan region,Duke
port of Pisa. The importance of this port for the entire Tuscan region introduced the Lorena and
in 1575, entrusting Bernardo Buontalenti to design the port enlargement
central Italy. Venetian technicians able to remove land water and build huge dry dock storage and the new town of Livorno.
At thethe
supported beginning
town and of its
theport’s
1600s,growth.
by promoting a special hosting legislation called “Livornine” that
encouraged
At the end of the 1700s, the Duke ofmany
free cult and free commerce, TuscanyJewish, Portuguese,
liberalized Greek,
maritime Dutch,
trade andetc. travelers
Livorno started
became an
moving
important “free port” with 30,000 residents, where each community could practice their cult,a
in from the Mediterranean and European countries. Livorno in a few years became quite
significant
tradition, and multiethnic port town
cultural activities. It with
becamea keyveryrole in serving
significant forFlorence, the Tuscan
international tradingregion,
between and central
Holland,
Italy. Venetian technicians
Europe, and the Mediterranean countries.able to remove land water and build huge dry dock storage supported the
townThe andactual
its port’s
town growth.
of Livorno accounts for 135,000 residents and it is the second town of Tuscany.
At the end of
This short historical the 1700s, the Duke
reference of Tuscany
points liberalized maritime trade and Livorno became an
out the following:
important “free port” with 30,000 residents, where each community could practice their cult, tradition,
-
and Livornoactivities.
cultural was born It asbecame
a trading port
very supporting
significant forall the inland Tuscan
international tradingeconomy;
between Holland, Europe,
-
and PisaMediterranean
the at the beginning and obviously Florence were strategically the main reference points for
countries.
political
The actual andtowneconomic decisions;
of Livorno accounts for 135,000 residents and it is the second town of Tuscany.
- Livorno is a strategic location
This short historical reference points for connecting the Italian peninsula with islands like Sardinia,
out the following:
Corse, Elba, Sicily, and the south Mediterranean (Tunisia, Morocco); many traders and
- passengers
Livorno was use theas
born quite impressive
a trading ferry network
port supporting departing
all the from Livorno.
inland Tuscan economy;
- Pisa at the beginning and obviously Florence were strategically the main reference points for
With cruise tourism unavoidably appearing, Livorno was identified as a key port of call, a real
political and economic decisions;
gateway to allow tourists to briefly visit Florence, Pisa, and Lucca, important international tourism
- Livorno is a strategic location for connecting the Italian peninsula with islands like Sardinia,
attractions., which is illustrated at Figure 4.
Corse, Elba, Sicily, and the south Mediterranean (Tunisia, Morocco); many traders and passengers
Livorno still has its role as a trading and ferry port. The cruise component is relatively new and
use the quite impressive ferry network departing from Livorno.
accounts for 786,000 passengers, compared to the ferry movement with 2.65 million persons per year.
The port
Withhas 11 berths
cruise tourism forunavoidably
ferries and cruise ships,Livorno
appearing, and it iswasbasically connected
identified as a key with
porta of
short
call,transit
a real
area for passengers, with terminal features offering not just a ticket office
gateway to allow tourists to briefly visit Florence, Pisa, and Lucca, important international tourism and waiting area, but also
additional services (info points,
attractions., which is illustrated at Figure 4.security, internet point, Wi-Fi, cafeteria, etc.).
Figure 4. Livorno gateway port.

Figure 4. Livorno gateway port.
Livorno still has its role as a trading and ferry port. The cruise component is relatively new and
The logistic terminal has a shuttle bus to the town center, as well as a taxi, car rental, and “fly
accounts for 786,000 passengers, compared to the ferry movement with 2.65 million persons per year.
and cruise” service. The “fly and cruise” service connects the port with Pisa airport; in principle, this
The port has 11 berths for ferries and cruise ships, and it is basically connected with a short transit
great asset of being very close to an international airport could allow Livorno to take the role of a
area for passengers, with terminal features offering not just a ticket office and waiting area, but also
additional services (info points, security, internet point, Wi-Fi, cafeteria, etc.).
The logistic terminal has a shuttle bus to the town center, as well as a taxi, car rental, and “fly and
cruise” service. The “fly and cruise” service connects the port with Pisa airport; in principle, this great
asset of being very close to an international airport could allow Livorno to take the role of a homeport.
Tourists could fly into Pisa and depart for cruises without carrying their luggage. Furthermore, the role
of a homeport entails many shore services for cruises, that over time were developed by other nearby
ports, such as Barcelona and Genova. Among port competitors, there is already a division of roles.
It is not easy to combine the role of being a traditional trading and ferry movement port without high
specific investments and great stakeholder ability to displace competitors already in the homeport role.
Inland tours chosen by Livorno cruise passengers see 90% of the total excursions going to Florence,
Pisa, and Lucca, while Cinque Terre accounts for 4.37% (Porto Livorno 2000, 2019). In the last few
years, the inland assets offered even many other possibilities to visit the Etruscan coast and towns,
including wine and oil areas, and the unique Tuscan countryside. It is a very important excursion
supply that offers the opportunity to discover Tuscany’s specific identity, while “decongesting” the
most requested and visited towns. The latest report on tourism in Tuscany accounted Florence with
more than 26 million visitors in 2018 [37].
There is a historical “path dependence” of the port of Livorno on Florence and Pisa, which seems
to be confirmed by the cruise sector’s choices. Now, the number of town destinations is uneven, adding
people to the already crowded famous towns.
Livorno is a gateway port, and it would be profitable to try enriching this role in a conscious
way in order to invest in and develop assets that can allow the town to be appealing and desirable for
tourists when arriving via ferry or disembarking from cruises.
The ferry terminal and two cruise terminals in Livorno—the Alto Fondale and Porto Mediceo—which
accommodate larger cruise ships and highlight the historic fort, are walking distance from downtown
(only 8 min by foot). Several itineraries to explore the historical part of the city are proposed, such as
for example a ride to the beautiful area with canals called La Venezia, built during the 15th century
based on a Venetian architect’s project.
Of course, to be “a first choice” in the territory, many conditions need to be developed. First of all,
the proposed excursions should be promoted through a segmented marketing and communication
strategy in order for Livorno to become a demanded destination. Moreover, it would be necessary to
put together cruise plans with a stop lasting at least a couple of days in Livorno.
For this, we would need to discuss the cruise package decisions taken by these gigantic oligopolistic
companies, which is a huge and difficult bargain for local stakeholders. It is not surprising that, despite
the unusual history of Livorno, just a very small number of tourists disembark and visit the town
(0.62%) [37]. The vocation of Livorno was never a tourist one and putting value into its history and its
monuments, museums, and identity is a process that just recently started.
In Livorno, the local government suffers from a weak public policy and weak management
practices. The integration of tourism into a local strategic planning framework is still absent; we can
highlight the lack of consultation between the tourism industry, private companies, the port authority,
trade organizations, and public institutions that, instead, should be essential for enhancing local
economies and promoting the discovery of social and cultural context. Moreover, the new majority
private property of Porto Livorno 2000 did not clarify its own strategy.
Regarding cruise sustainability means measuring and calibrating the effort and stakeholder
involvement to strengthen the port’s role and designing new appealing services and activities able to
attract people for a longer time than the cruise stops.
4. Results
In light of the empirical research that led to the designing of the two case studies of Lisbon and
Livorno, we developed a tentative “model” for the different ports’ roles. Table 1, built from different
sources of information, such as interviews with executives and secondary data gathered by port
offices and the public published by consultants and official websites, summarizes the accessibility,
characteristics, and main supply of each port according to the variables presented in our theoretical
framework (see Section 3).
Table 1. Comparison between the roles of the ports of Lisbon and Livorno.
Variables Livorno (Italy) Lisbon (Portugal)

Type of Port Gateway Port Destination Port
The Administração do Porto de Lisboa
Until 2018, the proprietary majority was
(APL), the administration of the Lisbon Port,
public. Since 2019, 66% is privately hold by
Ownership/ is an association that has the grant to the
Moby (main ferry company) + 34% by the
management cruise terminal activity for the last 35 years.
Chamber of Commerce and Port Network
Since 2014, the APL has a private
Authority of the Tyrrhenian Sea
ownership.
-West-Med Route: Morocco–Livorno
-North Tyrrhenian Multi-Port Gateway Switching point or base port for
-Northern Italy -Atlantic coast of Europe;
Port location -Central–Eastern Europe -Western Mediterranean;
-West Mediterranean/Eastern Europe “land -Northern Europe;
bridge” -Africa, Madeira, and the Canary Islands
-North–South America
Cargo shipment: 748,000 TEU movements
(+1.9%)
Container cargo: 56%
Ro-Ro (cars) sector: 507,000 movements
Bulk agri-food stuffs and liquid and solid
(+13.2%)
raw materials: 29%
Port core business * Energy Products: Long tradition in
Tourism and leisure: 15%
chemical and gas and oil sector: 11 million
Cruises: 487,000 passengers (+11%
tons (+10%)
compared to 2018)
Ferry: 2.65 million passengers (+5.2%)
Cruises: 786,000 passengers (+12.5%)
3 cruise terminals: Alcantara, Santa
Alto Fondale and Porto Mediceo; Apolonia, and Jardim do Tabaco Quay.
Cruise terminal independent management; market position Market position as a turnaround port for
positioning as premium/luxury cruises tours. large international cruises companies
In expansion, but still interstitial. Exponential growth, but still niche business
segment
Port’s main access channel has 14 m depth
1500 m of berth quay (depths between 8 m
11 Berths for cruise ships and ferries (3.5 km and 12 m)
of port berths) 13,800 m2 of terminal facilities over 3 floors
Port infrastructures 2 cruise terminals 1490 m of pier for multi length ships
1 ferry terminal 3 cruise terminals (north bank of the River
Shore-side electric power supply plant Tagus)
4 recreational docks: Alcantara, Belem, Bom
Sucesso, and Santo Amaro
Waiting area
Waiting area Wi-Fi
Info point Info tour for experiencing Lisbon
Check-in desks Duty-free stores
Security check Ship storage area
Ticket offices Onsite equipment (forklift, crane, and
Cash dispenser others)
Terminal features
Internet Point Supplying services (water, provisions, and
Wi-Fi others)
Parking Fully automated gangway system
Bar and cafeteria Post office
Shopping center Public phones
Self-service restaurant Souvenirs shops
Wine shops
Table 1. Cont.
Variables Livorno (Italy) Lisbon (Portugal)

Type of Port Gateway Port Destination Port
Connection to Lisbon railway station;
Bus to Pisa international airport (fly and
80 bus parking spaces at Alcantara terminal
cruise)
Taxi parking
Car rental booth (drive and cruise)
Terminal logistics Cars rental
Taxi parking
360 car parking spaces
Chauffeur service parking
Coach park
Shuttle bus to Livorno city center
Shuttle bus to Lisbon city center
Florence–Pisa–Lucca (90% of total
excursions)
City of Lisbon ** (90%)
Cinque Terre (4.37%)
Sintra (28%)
Inland assets San Gimignano/Volterra
Cascais (17%)
Etruscan coast excursions, wine and oil
Fatima (10%)
roads, Tuscan museums, wine tasting,
truffle hunting, farmhouse visiting, etc.)
-Event and exhibition centers -Panoramic view terrace
Additional services
-Tour operator booth -Music concert hall
* For Livorno, data were taken from the port authority (2019 compared with 2018); for Lisbon, the main source of
information was the Lisbon port website. ** Multiple choice answers. Data released from Observatorio Turismo de
Lisboa, “Survey to cruise passengers, Porto del Lisboa”, 2017.
The roles that Lisbon and Livorno assume with regard to cruise packages is are as a destination
port and gateway port, respectively.
Lisbon is amongst the most popular tourism destinations in the world and one of the main
international cruise terminals, experiencing a growth in cruise demand [52]. People docking in Lisbon
are driven by the cruise companies to visit the town. City tours are usually directly organized by
the cruise line companies and promoted by their connected travel wholesalers. Instead, Livorno is
considered a true “gateway” to the wonders of Tuscany (Florence, Pisa, Cinque Terre, Etruscan coast,
and so on). Not surprisingly, Livorno is presented in many cruise line itineraries as the “port of
Florence”. The city of Livorno serves as a jump-off point for daytrips elsewhere; Florence is no doubt
the primary destination, but even other cities like Pisa, Lucca, and San Gimignano are also options.
Despite the growing importance of cruise tourism and passenger traffic in Lisbon and Livorno,
both towns were born as merchant ports. Lisbon has a tradition in container cargo shipment, together
with the movement of solid and liquid raw materials. Nevertheless, Lisbon is globally known “city
break” destination; the local attractions, the strategic location, and the mild climate stimulate a growing
number of tourists to visit the town throughout the year. Thus, the tourism and leisure segments
became progressively important for the port.
Livorno was historically devoted to the shipment of goods and to ferry transportation, while
cruises are still an interstitial activity. Indeed, in terms of the contribution to the port town economy,
in Livorno, freight traffic is the most relevant, followed by people embarking on and disembarking
from ferry boats, involving three-quarters of passenger turnover, the most significant category of the
Livorno port. Cruise passengers are increasing but, as of now, they account for one-quarter of total
passenger traffic.
Although both harbors are in the town, in Lisbon, the different segments of port activity are
very clearly separated, and the cruise ships are also in a quite isolated area from the cargo. Instead,
in Livorno, where freight traffic and ferry passenger embarkment/disembarkment is still prevalent
compared to cruises, this separation is not so evident, and there are some areas forbidden to pedestrians.
To ease the accessibility of cruisers to the town and transport facilities (car, taxi and bus parking, car
rentals, etc.), some specific investments would be required. For instance, there is an issue with cellulose
raw material deposited on the trade berth too close to the passenger dock. This kind of contamination
would require new security investments to protect passengers from pollution.
For both ports, cruise tourism is not their core business. In spite of that, Lisbon and Livorno
largely invested in different specific proportions to extend new cruise terminals, in order to offer core
and additional services. They are rebuilding and expanding the infrastructures and facilities to host
larger and more numerous cruises vessels, as well as provide comfort and entertainment amenities.
In both cases, those massive investments promoting the expansion of cruise tourism seem to
be strictly connected to the recent privatization of the two port authorities (PortoLivorno2000 and
APL-Administração do Porto de Lisboa). Still, some differences are emerging. In Lisbon, the port
is strategically investing in cruise terminals and in their positioning to appear as a unique and
competitive destination, even boosting the authenticity of local businesses, such as local product
providers (local shops, small restaurants, etc.). Lisbon APL is working on creating a direct networking
and communication process with local associations and private cruise companies. On the contrary, in
Livorno, the main interest of the port’s new majority private owner is the ferry port’s facilities and
services in order to boost the passenger traffic in the port, instead of developing a shared wider strategy
to enhance Livorno as a tourist destination. It is clear that, in both ports, the core business is freight
traffic, while cruises are a growing but still niche segment of tourism.
5. Conclusions Remarks and Discussion

This comparative study showed similar sustainability challenges for significantly different ports.
We started by analyzing the cruise sector, the ports’ structure and assets, and the state of the art
regarding cruise destinations, carrying capacity, and port categories.
Socio-cultural and economic sustainability occupies an important role in the cruise industry. Key
concerns include the cooperation between and co-location of close ports, as well as the inhabitants’
quality of life, the accessibility to recreation, the management of local infrastructures, public
transportation, and road congestion, the protection of the cultural heritage of the city, the reduction of
the pressure on main attraction areas through the implementation of diversified offers, the promotion
of local economies (small enterprises, typical food, product manufacturing, etc.), and the control of
service prices (taxis, shops, restaurants, museums, etc.).
Although cruise tourism accounts for a low percentage of the overall number of visitors, as reported
by industry reports [37,50], and is, thus, a minor contributor to crowd tourism, the concept of
socio-economic and cultural sustainability appears to be connected to the simultaneous presence of
huge numbers of people—sometimes about 2000–4000 passengers—disembarking simultaneously and
moving around in limited areas for a few hours. Furthermore, the surveys applied in the Lisbon and
Livorno ports showed that cruise visitor expenditure is relatively low, which is aligned with research
concerning passengers [16].
In Lisbon, the coincidence of being a mass tourism destination and a cruise port is especially
delicate in terms of sustainability. The city government is facing an impressive increase in tourism flow,
even higher than Amsterdam or Barcelona. In response to this situation, Lisbon is undertaking a leading
role in the process of coordination and exchange with multiple actors involved in the tourism filiére
(private companies, cruise associations, port authority, local government, not-for-profit organizations,
etc.), trying to intervene in the regional and local tourism planning and mass tourism management [52].
Conversely, the city of Livorno is an intermediate location; it developed a unique geography where
its importance is derived from its accessibility (as a gateway to inland and/or air transportation through
the Pisa and Florence airports) rather than its town’s intrinsic characteristics. A port like Livorno has
advantages deriving from its logistic strategic position, as well as providing access to more attractive
surrounding places. It is a port-city which is not yet considered a well-known tourist attraction, and
it is identified as “very interesting for its genuineness”. In preserving that, Livorno would need to
support its competitiveness through a balance of local and international tourist operators. This could
help reduce the onshore excursions to crowded sites (e.g., Florence), diversifying the cruise excursion
destinations. It would be strategic to include the port’s historic town and other Tuscan attractions in a
customized way, building a supply able to attract more selective and demanding visitors. Livorno
should offer a distinctive “cruise shore scape”, i.e., integrated land-based components of both the
urban port and adjacent hinterland [19], in order to propose an authentic inland experience.
The strategic vision, the revitalization of the port infrastructure, and the innovative communication
campaigns by cruise companies and industry associations and travel global operators, undertaken
by port terminal Livorno 2000 in order to attract cruise tourists to its historic parts, resulted in
increased local visits and longer cruise ships stays. In Lisbon port, the active participation in trade
international meetings is also allowing cruise tourism development. However, the government actions
of these two ports reflect a cooperation among stakeholders, in alignment with strategies considered
to change the ports’ configurations and achieve an upper positioning as hub ports [44,46]. Also,
from the sustainability point of view, the research builds on previous research, highlighting that
the identification of the port role in the cruise filiére is a key aspect to understanding where the
high numbers of people disembarking are spending their time inland; however, this research also
contributed through a comparative approach of two quite different ports in their characteristics but
with quite similar strategies and management actions (attracting cruise ships in a responsible way, as
well as reducing crowd visitors to be most demanded touristic places).
From both cases we analyzed, it emerges that the most demanded tourist towns (Lisbon and
Florence) suffer from “over-tourism” with a carrying capacity which is close to collapse regarding
services for visitors and the quality of life of the local citizens. A possible strategy could be, therefore,
the implementation of a kind of “coopetition” with other local places, in order to try spread the
number of visitors among inland cities. Respecting the specificities of the cruise port towns, creating
a joint identity with its surroundings, and proposing dynamic experiences and routes for niche
visitors should be effective marketing strategies for Lisbon and Livorno/Tuscany in order to find a
balance between challenges, such as visitor pressure, and caring both for the local community and the
destination’s stakeholders.
Furthermore, we suggest that cruise visitors and local brands could share and experience, in the
terminal, a quickly available sample of the best regional experiences in gastronomy, products, and
culture. This could motivate longer and repeated tourist visits, while pleasantly enjoying the regional
offers. We suggest that a much deeper cruise terminal concept designed as a top-quality and genuine
sample of the products and gastronomy from the region would add value to both residents and
visitors. Indeed, a new cruise terminal concept should combine all the above, reducing the percentage
of land services for cruise lines [41] and increasing the safety of cruise passengers. This emerging
trend of combining port terminals, local offers, and city congestion was suggested in some previous
studies [19,42] and from the innovation in some ports [8] or the building of new ones [7], where they
adopt the duty-free style from airport shopping.
6. Study Limitations and Future Research

The main limitation stems from the fact that the questionnaires were not designed to answer
the questions raised by the cruise tourism literature, and our focus was instead on the ports’ role in
achieving greater sustainability. We hope that this study and methodology inspires other researchers
in designing more specific databases and extending the study to other locations and experiments.
Specific data on cruise tourism segmentation and consumption were not available. In both ports,
the surveys prepared by the authorities show the passengers’ socio-demographic and nationality
profiles, as well as their cruise trip choice motivations and behavior aligned with industry reports such as
CLIA and Med Cruise, in addition to previous research focusing on visitors. The majority of passengers
experienced cruise tourism, booked the trip mainly from a travel agency to the Mediterranean or
Caribbean lines, staying about two weeks on the cruise trip, where the itinerary was a key motivation,
and in which cultural visits and shopping accounted for the major consumption of time and cost when
inland, showing an overall high level of satisfaction, although it was lower in the terminal services and
offices in Livorno.
However, we could not compare and carry out a cross-analysis between the segments’ expectations,
or evaluations of the ports’ services (entertainment and shopping) and the towns’ offers.
A quantitative study on the importance of reducing crowds and the number of visits to the town’s
port services and infrastructures was obtained from a survey addressed to the passengers, as well as the
industry stakeholders (cruise companies and tourism operators). Although, in both ports’ terminals,
managers are attracting cruise ships to increase the length of stay, on average, cruise visitors do not stay
long enough to find the characteristics and genuine products and brands of the town. These findings
were in conformity with academic research [22]. Also, these studies quantified the cost/benefits for
each stakeholder (cruise companies, businesses, and ports terminal management), or at least to have a
deeper perspective of the other two stakeholders regarding the potential use and concept designed for
the cruise terminal’s commercial and entertainment area. Studies on how to benefit from the port areas
for local businesses (public and private ones) and port terminals is a developing research stream [26].
It would be important to analyze how the ports’ cruise terminals could be a tool to reduce congestion
for shorter visits.
Furthermore, an understanding of the passengers’ and residents’ opinions concerning the value
added in the ports’ role with regard to the co-destination concept between cruise ships and ports of
call, as introduced by Whyte et al. (2018) [42], can enhance the knowledge on port policy that can reach
a sustainable future for the industry.
Author Contributions: This article is the result of joint work by all authors, who equally contributed to the design
and research. All authors collaborated in analyzing data, preparing the data, and writing the paper. All authors
discussed and agreed to submit the manuscript. Conceptualization, M.S., E.R. and P.Z.; data curation, M.S., E.R.
and P.Z.; resources, M.S., E.R. and P.Z.; writing—original draft, M.S.; writing—review and editing, E.R. and P.Z.
Funding: This research was supported by Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, grant UID/GES/00315/2019.
Acknowledgments: This study would not be possible without the valuable support from the personal face-to-face
interviews with the managers of the Port of Lisbon and the Port of Livorno, as well as industry experts.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
References
1. Biehn, N. A cruise ship is not a floating hotel. J. Rev. Pricing Manag. 2006, 5, 135–142. [CrossRef]
2. Jaakson, R. Beyond the tourist bubble? Cruise ship passengers in port. Ann. Tour. Res. 2004, 31, 44–60.
[CrossRef]
3. Hung, K.; Petrick, J. Why do you cruise? Exploring the motivations for taking cruise holidays and the
construction of a cruising motivation scale. Tour. Manag. 2011, 32, 386–393. [CrossRef]
4. Hritz, N.; Cecil, A. Investigating the sustainability of cruise tourism: A case study of Key West. J. Sustain.
Tour. 2008, 16, 168–181. [CrossRef]
5. Ramoa, C.E.A.; Flores, L.C.S.; Stecker, B. The convergence of environmental sustainability and ocean cruises
in two moments: In the academic research and corporate communication. Rev. Bras. Pesqui. Tur. 2018, 12,
152–178. [CrossRef]
6. Dwyer, L.; Forsyth, P. Economic Significance of Cruise tourism. Ann. Tour. Res. 1998, 25, 393–415. [CrossRef]
7. McCarthy, J. Responsible cruise tourism and regeneration: The case of Nanaimo, British Columbia, Canada.
Int. Plan. Stud. 2018, 23, 225–238. [CrossRef]
8. Pugliano, G.; Benassai, G.; Benassai, E. Integrating urban and port planning policies in a sustainable
perspective: The case study of Naples historic harbour area. Plan. Perspect. 2018, 1–21. [CrossRef]
9. Jordan, E.J.; Vogt, C.A. Residents’ Perceptions of Stress Related to cruise tourism development. Tour. Plan.
Dev. 2017, 14, 527–547. [CrossRef]
10. Lopes, M.J.; Dredge, D. Cruise Tourism Shore Excursions: Value for Destinations? Tour. Plan. Dev. 2018, 15,
633–652. [CrossRef]
11. MacNeill, T.; Wozniak, D. The economic, social and environmental impacts of cruise tourism. Tour. Manag.
2018, 66, 387–404. [CrossRef]
12. Del Chiappa, G.; Lorenzo-Romero, C.; Gallarza, M. Host community perceptions of cruise tourism in a
homeport: A cluster analysis. J. Destin. Mark. Manag. 2018, 7, 170–181. [CrossRef]
13. Dragin, A.; Dragin, V.; Kosic, K.; Demirovic, D.; Ivkov-Dzigurski, A. Tourists motives and residents towards
the cruisers. Tour. South East Eur. 2017, 4, 133–144.
14. Del Chiappa, G.; Abbate, T. Island cruise tourism development A resident perspective in the context of Italy.
Curr. Issues Tour. 2016, 19, 1372–1385. [CrossRef]
15. Sanz-Blas, S.; Buzova, D.; Schlesinger, W. The sustainability of cruise tourism onshore: The impact of
crowding on visitors’ satisfaction. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1510. [CrossRef]
16. Larsen, S.; Wolf, K. Exploring Assumptions about Cruise Tourists’ visits to ports. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2016,
17, 44–49. [CrossRef]
17. Jurado, E.N.; Damian, I.M.; Fernandéz-Morales, A. Carrying capacity model applied in coastal destinations.
Ann. Tour. Res. 2013, 43, 1–19. [CrossRef]
18. London, W.R.; Lohmann, G. Power in the context of cruise destination stakeholder’s interrelationships.
Res. Transp. Bus. Manag. 2014, 13, 24–35. [CrossRef]
19. Stefanidaki, E.; Lekakou, M. Cruise carrying capacity: A conceptual approach. Res. Transp. Bus. Manag.
2014, 13, 43–52. [CrossRef]
20. Karlis, T.; Polemis, D. Cruise homeport competition in the Mediterranean. Tour. Manag. 2018, 68, 168–175.
[CrossRef]
21. Weaver, D.B.; Lawton, L.J. The cruise shorescape as contested tourism space: Evidence from the warm-water
pleasure periphery. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2017, 24, 117–125. [CrossRef]
22. Chen, J.M.; Nijkamp, P. Itinerary Planning: Modelling cruise lines’ lengths of stay in ports. Int. J. Hosp.
Manag. 2018, 73, 55–63. [CrossRef]
23. Seabra, F.; Beck, A.L.; Manfredini, D.; Muller, M. Do tourist attractions of an itinerary pull cruise ship lines?
A logit model estimation for Southern Hemisphere destinations. Tour. Plan. Dev. 2018, 1–9. [CrossRef]
24. McCarthy, J. Spatial Planning, Tourism and Regeneration in Historic port cities. DISP Plan. Rev. 2003, 39,
19–25. [CrossRef]
25. McCarthy, J.P.; Romein, A. Cruise passenger terminals, spatial planning and regeneration: The cases of
Amesterdam and Rotterdeam. Eur. Plan. Stud. 2012, 20, 2033–2052. [CrossRef]
26. Vaggelas, G.K.; Pallis, A.A. Passengers ports: Services provision and their benefits. Marit. Policy Manag.
2010, 37, 73–89. [CrossRef]
27. Dai, T.; Hein, C.; Zhang, T. Understanding how Amesterdam City tourism marketing addresses cruise
tourists’ motivations regarding culture. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2019, 29, 157–165. [CrossRef]
28. Klein, R.A. Responsible cruise tourism: Issues of cruise tourism and Sustainability. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag.
2011, 18, 107–116. [CrossRef]
29. Nebot, N.; Rosa-Jimenez, C.; Ninot, R.P.; Perea-Medina, B. Challenges for the future of ports. What can be
learnt from the Spanish Mediterranean ports? Ocean Coast. Manag. 2017, 137, 165–174. [CrossRef]
30. Cussano, M.I.; Ferrari, C.; Tei, A. Port hierarchy and concentration: Insights from the Mediterranean cruise
market. Int. J. Tour. Res. 2017, 19, 235–245. [CrossRef]
31. Hung, K.; Wang, S.; Gillet, B.D.; Liu, Z. An overview of cruise tourism research through comparison of cruise
studies published in English and Chinese. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2018, 77, 207–216. [CrossRef]
32. Papathanassis, A. Cruise Tourism Management: State of the art. Tours. Rev. 2017, 72, 104–119. [CrossRef]
33. UNWTO. ‘Overtourism’? Understanding and Managing Urban Tourism Growth beyond Perceptions; UNWTO:
Madrid, Spain, 2017.
34. Cruise Lines International Association. The Contribution of the International Cruise Industry to the Global
Economy in 2017; CLIA: Washington, DC, USA, 2018.
35. European Commission. Tourism Statistics at Regional Level. 2017. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/
eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Tourism_statistics_at_regional_level (accessed on 11 June 2019).
36. Cruise Activities in MedCruise Port Statistics of 2017; Medcruise report; Medcruise: Rome, Italy, 2018.
37. IRPET. Cruising in Livorno and Its Economic Impaction in Tuscany; IRPET: Florence, Italy, 2018.
38. Johnson, D. Environmental Sustainable Cruise Tourism: A reality Check. Mar. Policy 2002, 26, 261–270.
[CrossRef]
39. Brida, J.G.; Zapata-Aguirre, S. Cruise Tourism: Economic, socio-cultural and environmental impacts. Int. J.
Leis. Tour. Mark. 2010, 1, 205. [CrossRef]
40. Hoogkamer, L.P. Assessing and Managing Cruise Ship Tourism in Historic Port Cities: Case Study Charleston
South Carolina. Master’s Thesis, Graduate School of Architecture, Planning and Preservation, Columbia
University, New York, NY, USA, 2013.
41. Marques, B.; Cruse, R. Cruise Tourism in Dominica: Benefits and Beneficiaries. ARA J. Tour. Res. 2015, 5,
7–19.
42. Whyte, L.J.; Packer, J.; Ballantyne, R. Cruise destinations attributes: Measuring the relative importance of the
onboard and the onshore aspects of cruising. Tour. Recreat. Res. 2018, 43, 470–482. [CrossRef]
43. Rodrigue, J.P.; Notteboom, T. The geography of cruises: Itineraries, not destinations. Appl. Geogr. 2013, 38,
31–42. [CrossRef]
44. Lekakou, M.B.; Pallis, A.A. Cruising the Mediterranean sea: Market Structures and EU Policy initiatives.
J. Transp. Shipp. 2005, 2, 14.
45. Bagis, O.; Dooms, M. Turkey’s potential on becoming a cruise hub for the East Mediterranean region: The
case of Istambul. Res. Transp. Bus. Manag. 2014, 13, 6–15. [CrossRef]
46. Dia Vaio, A.; D’Amore, G. Governance of Italian cruise terminals for the management of Mediterranean
passenger flows. Int. J. Euro Mediterr. Stud. 2012, 4, 119–137.
47. Marti, B. Geography and the cruise ship port selection process. Marit. Policy Manag. 1990, 17, 157–164.
[CrossRef]
48. CTUR. URBACT II European Programme CTUR Thematic Framework–Cruise Traffic and Urban.
In Regeneration Final Report and Good Practices Guide; European Union: Luxembourg, 2011.
49. Portal do Porto de Lisboa. Available online: http://www.portodelisboa.pt (accessed on 11 June 2019).
50. Deloitte. Estudo de Impacte Macroeconómico do Turismo na Cidade e na Região de Lisboa em; Deloitte: New York,
NY, USA, 2017.
51. Barros, J.C. Cruzeiros Turisticos e acessos a cidades históricas: A reinvenção de Lisboa como porto de entrada
e lugar turístico. Int. J. Sci. Manag. Tour. 2016, 2, 397–416.
52. Santos, A.G. Cruise Tourism in Lisbon-Cruise Tourism activity and its impact in the city. Work project for a
Master degree. NOVA–School of Business and Economics; unpublished.
© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Sustainability 11 04542 v2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sustainability 11 04542 v2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sustainability 11 04542 v2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

sustainability

Sustainability 2019, 11, 4542; doi:10.3390/su11174542 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

A comparative–qualitative approach is followed, supported by secondary data, observation of

2.1. The Development of Cruise Tourism

2.2. Coastal Destination Cost/Benefit Trade-Off

2.3. The Cruise Sector Structure and Drivers

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. The Proposed Framework

Figure 2. The theoretical framework.

3.2.1. Lisbon: A “Destination” Port

Figure 3. Lisbon as a destination port.

3.2.2. Livorno: A “Gateway” Port

Figure 4. Livorno gateway port.

Variables Livorno (Italy) Lisbon (Portugal)

Variables Livorno (Italy) Lisbon (Portugal)

5. Conclusions Remarks and Discussion

6. Study Limitations and Future Research

You might also like